Here I continue discussion of Walter Rauschenbusch’s The Social Principles of Jesus with Chapter VIII: Private Property and the Common Good: Private Property Must Serve Social Welfare. If you read the chapter, feel free to comment. If not, feel free to ask a question. In any case, observe the rules set forth at the end end.
Was Rauschenbusch a socialist? There is no simple, straightforward answer except, perhaps, that he was not not a socialist. In this chapter he expresses the necessity and good of private property but does not yet discuss the issue of the public ownership of the means of production. On the other hand, he argues that a follower of Jesus will be highly suspicious of wealth as toxic to “the higher nature” (spirituality) and believe that wealth should serve others and not be used to obtain power or hoarded.
He admits that the precise lines to be drawn will always be questionable and worthy of discussion and debate. He argues that Jesus did not give rules for economics. Jesus’s principles need to be fleshed out in each age and by each generation. But some things are clear.
According to Rauschenbusch, and I concur, there must be limits to wealth in any society. Government has the job of preventing social unrest by limiting wealth inequality.
What reasonable person, what sensible and sensitive Christian, what see that nobody should have one trillion dollars in his own name? Especially when there are people in the same society who do not know where their next meal with come from and who are homeless?
I am of the opinion that Rauschenbusch would at least favor a society governed by John Rawls’s theory of justice as fairness—that every increase in the wealth of the rich should result in some gain for the poor. Even if that gain is in opportunity, not “cash.” That rule is what everyone reasonable person would choose over others under the “veil of ignorance.”
Private property—yes; selfish use of private property—no.
According to Rauschenbusch, all property is owned by God and only “on loan” to humans.
When I was growing up in a fundamentalist Pentecostal church “conspicuous consumption” was treated as sin. If you had money to spend on luxuries you were expected to give it to world missions. A man became successful in business. He and his family drove up to church on Sunday in a brand new luxury car. The next Sunday the pastor preached on the sin of conspicuous consumption.
Go to most Pentecostal churches’ parking lots on any given Sunday today. What do you see?
*Note: If you choose to comment, make sure your comment or question is relatively brief (no more than 100 words), on topic, addressed to me, civil and respectful (not hostile or argumentative), and devoid of pictures or links.*
Ad-Free & Subscriber Log-In